Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:43:05 +0200 | | From | "Michael Kerrisk" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] socket, socketpair w/flags, accept4 | |
On 4/25/08, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:47PM -0400, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@redhat.com) wrote:
> > The code changes are really minimal. And don't get too hung up on the
> > internal name of the syscall. I think accept4 is more desriptive than
> > paccept since a) suffixes more easily indicate derived functionality
> > and b) the 4 actually indicates to the initiated what has changed.
> > If there are good reasons otherwise the userlevel interface can still
> > be something completely different.
>
>
> What about sigset there too?
Right. That was what I was understanding that Alan referred to when
he was talking about paccept()
|  |